Ill be updating this thread as the year goes on with our event statistics from the previous event. Hopefully we can use these to continue to increase the amount of cars we can run per hour to allow for more runs in the day, shorter days, or whatever anyone else would like to do with the efficiency.

There is still some low hanging fruit. Rick came up with a process for those few cars that end up being late to grid and thus late to finish, or those with re-runs. Which would have saved us another 10-20 minutes or so. Plus we got started at 9:16 which was me slowing down the event so I could ensure the import from msr to axware was correct. Rick also came up with a process that allows him to be ready so that right when 9am hits he can import. Thereby allowing us to start earlier. (Our average start time is 9:10am)

FWIW, I was the first group starter and spaced the initial cars at 20 sec. Anthony came over and requested we close it to 17 seconds which I did for the rest of the group. When it was my turn to run, I noticed we were back to 20 seconds. First group we had perhaps four "hold the starts" lasting an average of about 3 minutes ea. As far as starting late, I remember we also had to run a radio out to course. Just posted for add'l data, not complaining. I thought the day moved really well...I hope we can keep using the format.

Bill Martin wrote:FWIW, I was the first group starter and spaced the initial cars at 20 sec. Anthony came over and requested we close it to 17 seconds which I did for the rest of the group. When it was my turn to run, I noticed we were back to 20 seconds. First group we had perhaps four "hold the starts" lasting an average of about 3 minutes ea. As far as starting late, I remember we also had to run a radio out to course. Just posted for add'l data, not complaining. I thought the day moved really well...I hope we can keep using the format.

Anthony, any reason you used 2016 data for reference vs 2017?

Maybe because 2016 was entirely under the old format? December 2017 we used the new half-day format for the first time.

Couple of thoughts about spacing starts..... As starter in 2nd group, I took Bill's advice and tried for 17 second intervals. As everyone should know, it's always an approximation. Some people go on your signal, some take an additional few seconds to "ready" themselves (???) and some aren't paying any attention - fiddling with cameras, watching other cars, talking, etc. I'm watching the course, not making sure they're aware of me until go time. It's a bit of alchemy to get the spacing right and not cause a rerun or an unnecessary delay. On Sunday's course the situation was a bit different than what we have been experiencing. It was an average 55 second course, most others have been a little longer than that. On a short course it's hard for a fast car to catch a slow one in 55 sec with a 17-20 sec gap. So I can let cars go without much regard to their actual lap times. On a 70 sec course it's a lot easier to catch a slow car so the spacing has to take that into consideration. There can be cars running a 65 and ones running an 80. That gets them close by the time they finish. I have to take that into account for spacing which means I have to watch at least part of their run to see how fast/slow they are, at least on first runs. Sunday I could let almost every car go in that 17-20 gap without fear of catching the car ahead. On longer courses I have to use more judgment as to the catching up factor. Also, it depends on workers. No sense in sending a car when workers are still trying to get cones back in place in the first section. And, you have to keep an eye on the overall course in case someone does a finish wipeout or major cone destruction or there's a spin, stall, etc. Advice from the timing trailer is always helpful.

If I can offer one suggestion to keeping the times more consistent it would be to make everyone aware to be ready once they are staged, like at a Pro. Once you're on the line, PAY ATTENTION, be ready to go and GO.
Anyway.....
t

I'll add that course design has a lot to do with it, in addition to the other awareness issues already mentioned.

This course was good in the sense that there seemed to be relatively few cone hits. The course was easy to "see" yet difficult to get "right". We could have accomplished the same with even fewer cones (the final wallom would have driven identically as a slalom, with fewer cones to reset if they were hit), but I don't think there were many instances of multiple cone hits in that section.

So we should definitely keep our course designers in the loop, focused on minimalism for maximum efficiency.

Tom Tanquary wrote: Also, it depends on workers. No sense in sending a car when workers are still trying to get cones back in place in the first section. And, you have to keep an eye on the overall course in case someone does a finish wipeout or major cone destruction or there's a spin, stall, etc. Advice from the timing trailer is always helpful.

If I can offer one suggestion to keeping the times more consistent it would be to make everyone aware to be ready once they are staged, like at a Pro. Once you're on the line, PAY ATTENTION, be ready to go and GO.
Anyway.....
t

agreed. Also, if we can keep this going we can have larger run groups, so the 2 driver people arent hot lapping, leaving more people on course to catch cones, etc etc.

I would think we have another advantage with this format. Often one or two 2-driver cars manage to arrive late, or need extra tire cooling or whatever, and have the course all to themselves at the end. Any reason we can't feed initial cars from the next group in at the same time we're finishing up the stragglers? Perhaps we did that. But it's another efficiency boost.

In my group the multi-driver lanes overflowed, but there were empty lanes further out. We just needed another designated multi lane. People are supposed to fill from the outsides, but that doesn't happen. Herding cats.

Bill Martin wrote:I would think we have another advantage with this format. Often one or two 2-driver cars manage to arrive late, or need extra tire cooling or whatever, and have the course all to themselves at the end. Any reason we can't feed initial cars from the next group in at the same time we're finishing up the stragglers? Perhaps we did that. But it's another efficiency boost.

My guess is the computer software needs to close out the 1st heat runs before starting the second heat.

Bill Martin wrote:I would think we have another advantage with this format. Often one or two 2-driver cars manage to arrive late, or need extra tire cooling or whatever, and have the course all to themselves at the end. Any reason we can't feed initial cars from the next group in at the same time we're finishing up the stragglers? Perhaps we did that. But it's another efficiency boost.

My guess is the computer software needs to close out the 1st heat runs before starting the second heat.

No need to guess. Rick came up with a solution to that. When he is down to the last car or two he has the motorhome workers keep them on their own audit sheets and moves on with the next group, then stops for 30 seconds to print the audit sheets when those cars have finished. Before anyone asks to do more than 2 cars I suggest that you work timing and master radio...

Bill Martin wrote:In my group the multi-driver lanes overflowed, but there were empty lanes further out. We just needed another designated multi lane. People are supposed to fill from the outsides, but that doesn't happen. Herding cats.

When im in grid, even when im competing, I look to help new people and those in the wrong lanes because when I was a noob I was just yelled at.

Bill Martin wrote:In my group the multi-driver lanes overflowed, but there were empty lanes further out. We just needed another designated multi lane. People are supposed to fill from the outsides, but that doesn't happen. Herding cats.

When im in grid, even when im competing, I look to help new people and those in the wrong lanes because when I was a noob I was just yelled at.

Agreed, don't yell at noobs All of this appears chaotic and none of this is intuitive to new drivers

From what I observed from up on the berm someone directing traffic a little at grid may have helped some. The third group seemed to have bunched up a bit much over by the multi-driver lanes while the ones closer to the paddock seemed empty. Also maybe color coordinating the cones to mark some of the lanes (i.e. multi driver) might be something to look into.

Mike Simanyi wrote:I'll add that course design has a lot to do with it, in addition to the other awareness issues already mentioned.

This course was good in the sense that there seemed to be relatively few cone hits. The course was easy to "see" yet difficult to get "right". We could have accomplished the same with even fewer cones (the final wallom would have driven identically as a slalom, with fewer cones to reset if they were hit), but I don't think there were many instances of multiple cone hits in that section.

So we should definitely keep our course designers in the loop, focused on minimalism for maximum efficiency.

Great point Mike, I'll try and keep that in mind going forward with course designs.

Justin Erickson wrote:From what I observed from up on the berm someone directing traffic a little at grid may have helped some. The third group seemed to have bunched up a bit much over by the multi-driver lanes while the ones closer to the paddock seemed empty. Also maybe color coordinating the cones to mark some of the lanes (i.e. multi driver) might be something to look into.

I like this, even some different colored cones would help people see the differences in lanes and make it easier to get back to the same one. Neelu brought this up as well.

Multi-drivers should start from one end and singles from the other. Perhaps this doesn't happen because not everyone got the word. Perhaps it's because a single driver has seen that those who line up on the far side usually wind up running last and he doesn't want that. But for whatever reason, it hasn't been working and single drivers this event went to the third lane, blocking multi drivers from expanding to that lane.

I like the idea of getting colored cones for the multi-drivers. Anyone walking past can see a car with a single tech sticker sitting in the "blue zone" and give the guy the word.